Comparing an event of that magnitude with many of the past World Cup games, I question whether it would be possible for everyone to have enjoyed this marvellous experience if the pitch had been flooded with hundreds or thousands of ecstatic fans. I very much doubt it.

It has become obvious that one of the big issues during this World Cup - and, for that matter, in recent international cricket history - is the post-match conduct of some of the crowds. It has been appalling to see the way that hundreds of spectators have rushed on to the ground like hungry, angry seagulls rushing to secure a dropped chip outside a fish and chip shop. The dropped chip on an international cricket ground is one of the six wooden stumps taken as a souvenir, or a chance to touch one of their heroes for one second in time.

Seeing masses of spectators and security guards converging upon the centre square and players fleeing the ground the moment the last ball has been bowled has soured the World Cup experience in many ways.

When I read the event manager saying that "there is a tradition in England that people are allowed on to the field at the end of the game", I was amazed. What we are witnessing after matches in this tournament is sad and bewildering, but certainly not surprising, considering the events of recent times.

My amazement turned to disbelief when it was said that "there has been only one nasty incident involving a player, at Hove, where Mohammad Azharuddin was jostled by a spectator". Surely one incident, involving the captain of one of the visiting nations, is enough to prompt far stricter action by the organisers of this tournament.

Almost as a token gesture, it was concluded that "there is no question that the players have to be safe, and feel safe". What is it going to take for the authorities to take this issue more seriously? Who would have dreamt that, a few years ago, some lunatic, who decided that he did not like Monica Seles, would stab the world's No 1 women's tennis player by the side of a court?

I bet that security has taken massive steps forward in international tennis since. In this age of nail-bombings, celebrity murders and general disregard for humanity, a sportsman such as an international cricketer is easy prey for anybody who can obtain access to their target by simply running fast enough on to the middle of an international cricket arena.

With the recent events in the West Indies, India, Australia and Pakistan, surely enough is enough and spectators should be banned altogether from running on to the field for at least ten minutes after the stumps have been drawn. As an international player, I can only hope that it is not a tragedy that causes the administrators to realise that it is time to make a stand against this disgraceful and potentially dangerous behaviour.

Sunday was not just a sad day for English cricket, but yet another sad day for English cricket. Zimbabwe's shock defeat of South Africa did not help England's cause, but the cruel, hard facts are that England lost two crucial games that have hurt them more than anyone could have imagined only one week ago. After a promising start, it seems a little unjust to see Alec Stewart and his team thrown from the World Cup tournament like a bouncer may throw a drunken youth from a nightclub.

Pressure is a big man, bigger than any single man playing, and it seems that the added pressure of Zimbabwe's victory, tough and gifted opposing teams and immense home town expectation have taken their toll on the inconsistent England outfit. Obviously, everyone in England will have an opinion on why the England cricket team have fallen short again, but, in my view, the main problem is deeply set into the English cricket psyche.

On the surface, the England selectors may rue their decision not to have selected more specialist players in their squad. The best players in the country should be selected, regardless of whether the game is a Test match or a one-day international.

Mark Ramprakash is, in my eyes, the most technically correct and arguably the most talented batsman in the country. Because he bats like his life depends upon it in a Test match, the selectors obviously believe that he is not aggressive enough to play the shorter version of the game. Knowing the experience of the England selectors, this theory surprises me because it seems obvious that, given the opportunity, such a talent would adapt to the one-day game very easily. With his technique and range of strokes, he would fit in perfectly to the England middle order.

Nevertheless, while it would be to easy to criticise the selectors, the management or the rules of the competition, the players are the only ones who can truly accept responsibility for not progressing through to the next round.

From the printed edition of The Times, June 1, 1999

E-mail Justin Langer

Back to current on-line article